Abdul Q. Awan v. New York Metropolitan Transit Authority, et al.

S.D. New York

Abdul Q. Awan v. New York Metropolitan Transit Authority, et al.

DecidedOctober 16, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-04339

StatusUnknown

This text of Abdul Q. Awan v. New York Metropolitan Transit Authority, et al. (Abdul Q. Awan v. New York Metropolitan Transit Authority, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abdul Q. Awan v. New York Metropolitan Transit Authority, et al., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 10/16/2025 ABDUL Q. AWAN, Plaintiff, ORDER □ 25-CV-4339 (AT) (HJR) NEW YORK METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et ai., Defendants.

HENRY J. RICARDO, United States Magistrate Judge. Before the Court is a motion (the “Motion”) submitted by the pro se Plaintiff on October 10, 2025. ECF No. 69. Although the Notice of Motion describes the Motion as seeking summary judgment and an injunction, the Motion has been made before all Defendants have responded to the Complaint, and does not comply with Rules 56 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Motion at ECF No. 69 is therefore DENIED. The basis for Plaintiff's motion is Defendant New York Metropolitan Transit Authority’s (“MTA”) alleged refusal to “answer the summons and delaying the case after [the] deadline expired.” Motion at 1. The supporting affidavit at ECF No. 70 (the “Affidavit”) further complains of Defendant MTA receiving an extension of time to answer the Complaint and then allegedly failing to respond to the Complaint. Affidavit at 9-14. Plaintiff has made essentially the same claim numerous times before. The affidavits Plaintiff filed at ECF Nos. 26 and 30 overlap significantly with the

Affidavit currently before the Court. Compare ECF No. 26 with ECF No. 30 and ECF No. 70. The motions made by Plaintiff that were supported by the prior affidavits were denied. See ECF Nos. 31, 32.

Given the substantive similarity between Plaintiff’s prior motions—which were denied—and the instant Motion, the Court will construe the instant Motion as requesting reconsideration of the Court’s orders granting extensions of time for the MTA to respond to the Complaint. “The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is strict.” RCC Ventures, LLC v. Brandtone Holdings Ltd., 322 F.R.D. 442, 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). Motions for reconsideration are generally denied “unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court

overlooked—matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). Plaintiff has failed to meet this substantial burden. He does not offer any new controlling decisions or relevant data in his Motion. The MTA not only sought and obtained routine extensions, but indeed did

respond to the Complaint by filing a motion to dismiss on July 25, 2025, the deadline set by the Court. See ECF Nos. 32, 33. Plaintiff’s assertion that the MTA has refused to answer is entirely meritless, and the Motion is therefore denied. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the Motion at ECF No. 69 as DENIED and to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 16, 2025 fi New York, New York ff ff

HenrywJ. Ricard United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 10/16/2025 ABDUL Q. AWAN, Plaintiff, ORDER □ 25-CV-4339 (AT) (HJR) NEW YORK METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et ai., Defendants.

HENRY J. RICARDO, United States Magistrate Judge. Before the Court is a motion (the “Motion”) submitted by the pro se Plaintiff on October 10, 2025. ECF No. 69. Although the Notice of Motion describes the Motion as seeking summary judgment and an injunction, the Motion has been made before all Defendants have responded to the Complaint, and does not comply with Rules 56 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Motion at ECF No. 69 is therefore DENIED. The basis for Plaintiff's motion is Defendant New York Metropolitan Transit Authority’s (“MTA”) alleged refusal to “answer the summons and delaying the case after [the] deadline expired.” Motion at 1. The supporting affidavit at ECF No. 70 (the “Affidavit”) further complains of Defendant MTA receiving an extension of time to answer the Complaint and then allegedly failing to respond to the Complaint. Affidavit at 9-14. Plaintiff has made essentially the same claim numerous times before. The affidavits Plaintiff filed at ECF Nos. 26 and 30 overlap significantly with the

Affidavit currently before the Court. Compare ECF No. 26 with ECF No. 30 and ECF No. 70. The motions made by Plaintiff that were supported by the prior affidavits were denied. See ECF Nos. 31, 32.

Given the substantive similarity between Plaintiff’s prior motions—which were denied—and the instant Motion, the Court will construe the instant Motion as requesting reconsideration of the Court’s orders granting extensions of time for the MTA to respond to the Complaint. “The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is strict.” RCC Ventures, LLC v. Brandtone Holdings Ltd., 322 F.R.D. 442, 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). Motions for reconsideration are generally denied “unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court

overlooked—matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). Plaintiff has failed to meet this substantial burden. He does not offer any new controlling decisions or relevant data in his Motion. The MTA not only sought and obtained routine extensions, but indeed did

respond to the Complaint by filing a motion to dismiss on July 25, 2025, the deadline set by the Court. See ECF Nos. 32, 33. Plaintiff’s assertion that the MTA has refused to answer is entirely meritless, and the Motion is therefore denied. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the Motion at ECF No. 69 as DENIED and to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 16, 2025 fi New York, New York ff ff

HenrywJ. Ricard United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Abdul Q. Awan v. New York Metropolitan Transit Authority, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abdul-q-awan-v-new-york-metropolitan-transit-authority-et-al-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack